- From: Vincent Scheib <scheib@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:21:42 -0700
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: "public-webapps@w3c.org" <public-webapps@w3c.org>
Done, May user agents apply additional restrictions on entering pointer lock? [1] created and added to status section of specification. [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19297 On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > On 9/27/12 8:26 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: >> >> This is a Call for Consensus to publish a LCWD of Pointer Lock using the >> following document as the basis for the LC >> <http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/pointerlock/raw-file/tip/index.html>. >> >> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision >> to request advancement" for this LCWD. Note the Process Document states the >> following regarding the significance/meaning of a LCWD: >> >> [[ >> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call >> >> Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: >> >> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical >> requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working >> Draft; >> >> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant >> dependencies with other groups; >> >> * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these >> dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is >> also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical >> report to later maturity levels. >> ]] >> >> The proposed LC review period is 4 weeks. >> >> If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please send them to >> public-webapps@w3.org by October 4 at the latest. Positive response is >> preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with >> the proposal. > > > Hi All - given the discussion in the "Is Pointer Lock feature complete i.e. > LC ready?" thread (see f.ex. [1] and follow-ons), it appears we don't yet > have consensus the spec is ready for LCWD. > > As such, I recommend we work toward consensus on the issues raised in this > thread before proceeding with the LCWD. To help people track the issues > raised, perhaps it would be helpful to create a related bug [2] (and to add > a link to [2] in Status of the Document section). > > -AB > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012OctDec/0010.html > [2] > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?product=WebAppsWG&component=Pointer%20Lock&resolution=--- > > > >
Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 17:22:40 UTC